Comprehensive Analysis of Chimeric Contigs in Viral Metagenomic Assembly
| Contig ID | Chimera Type | Confidence | Decision | Breakpoint | Evidence Types | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 334 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 334, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 237 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 237, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 722 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 722, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1957 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,957, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3150 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,150, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 3992 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,992, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 4608 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,608, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 5168 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,168, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 3125 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,125, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 340 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 340, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1495 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,495, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2776 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,776, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3553 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,553, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 356 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 356, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.19) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 379 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 379, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 367 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 367, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1140 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,140, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1736 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,736, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.53) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 3520 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,520, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 244 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 244, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 875 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 875, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2379 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,379, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 3162 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,162, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 4047 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,047, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 6145 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,145, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 233 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 233, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 973 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 973, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2271 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,271, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 868 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 868, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.42) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.61.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1923 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,923, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.46) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2702 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,702, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.17) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3231 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,231, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 4779 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,779, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 6429 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,429, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 785 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 785, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1948 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,948, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 2858 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,858, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 4120 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,120, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_020 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 923 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 923, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_020 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2132 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,132, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_020 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3069 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,069, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 327 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 327, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1501 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,501, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 167 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 167, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.19) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2034 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,034, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1910 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,910, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 389 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 389, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 922 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 922, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2016 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,016, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 560 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 560, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1812 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,812, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1086 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,086, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 972 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 972, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 723 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 723, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1721 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,721, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 241 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 241, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_004 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 7473 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 7,473, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1679 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,679, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 4009 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,009, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 375 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 375, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 424 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 424, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 3412 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,412, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 588 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 588, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1291 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,291, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2429 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,429, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3351 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,351, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.45) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 516 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 516, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2028 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,028, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 3425 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,425, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4247 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,247, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 815 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 815, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1790 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,790, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 6741 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,741, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 7395 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 7,395, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 4971 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,971, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 217 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift, coverage_discontinuity |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 217, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 382 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 382, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 889 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 889, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1505 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,505, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 433 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 433, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1368 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,368, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2253 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,253, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.46) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1763 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,763, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2616 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,616, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 309 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 309, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1655 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,655, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 970 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 970, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 506 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 506, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1270 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,270, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 583 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 583, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.18) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1481 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,481, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.54) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 1567 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,567, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2722 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,722, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3559 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,559, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 4831 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,831, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 291 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 291, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 7458 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 7,458, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1739 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,739, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3426 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,426, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 736 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 736, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1355 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,355, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2486 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,486, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 4139 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,139, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 4299 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,299, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.50) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 522 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 522, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1882 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,882, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.15) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2188 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,188, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 218 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 218, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1692 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,692, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1278 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,278, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 2449 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,449, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 250 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 250, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 169 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 169, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1110 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,110, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 479 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 479, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1275 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,275, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 5044 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,044, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 818 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 818, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2220 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,220, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3276 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,276, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 628 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 628, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1574 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,574, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2933 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,933, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4300 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,300, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.54) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 5316 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,316, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 202 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 202, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 6329 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,329, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1985 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,985, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2667 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,667, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 786 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 786, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 3421 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,421, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 420 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 420, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 385 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 385, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_020 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 782 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 782, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_020 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1688 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,688, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_020 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2258 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,258, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1613 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,613, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2226 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,226, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 1449 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,449, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.15) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.80.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 2410 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,410, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.44) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 167 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 167, there is a 1.8x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.06) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1296 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,296, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2318 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,318, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 3629 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,629, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4161 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,161, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4774 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,774, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 848 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 848, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1823 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,823, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.48) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2330 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,330, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2999 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,999, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3742 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,742, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4611 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,611, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1326 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,326, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 2866 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,866, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1265 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,265, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 7018 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 7,018, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 6402 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,402, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2754 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,754, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 2873 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,873, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 3920 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,920, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_020 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 448 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 448, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_020 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1015 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,015, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.44) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.59.
|
| contig_020 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2046 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,046, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 349 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 349, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 1782 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,782, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 2739 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,739, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.17) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1492 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,492, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2539 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,539, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1820 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,820, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 913 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 913, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 7276 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 7,276, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 720 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 720, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3320 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,320, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4334 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,334, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2211 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,211, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 3914 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,914, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 5408 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,408, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 388 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 388, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 1513 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,513, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 3507 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,507, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3300 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,300, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.17) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 4006 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,006, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2025 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,025, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.52) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1516 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,516, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.43) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 444 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 444, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 269 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 269, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 690 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 690, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 1062 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,062, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1042 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,042, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.15) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 915 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 915, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3157 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,157, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4231 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,231, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4911 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,911, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 252 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 252, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 955 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 955, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.43) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2719 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,719, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4746 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,746, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.49) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 996 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 996, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2171 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,171, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2258 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,258, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1301 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,301, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.80.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3472 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,472, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 4319 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,319, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_020 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 3336 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,336, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 1159 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,159, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2299 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,299, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 163 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 163, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.18) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_004 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 356 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 356, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 953 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 953, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2766 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,766, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.44) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2018 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,018, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.43) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
|
| contig_020 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2933 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,933, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 708 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 708, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 795 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 795, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
Click on the links below to view detailed analysis for each chimeric contig:
Chimeric contigs are detected using multiple complementary approaches:
Confidence scores range from 0-1, with higher scores indicating stronger evidence for the classification. Scores above 0.8 are considered high confidence, 0.5-0.8 medium confidence, and below 0.5 low confidence.